Difference and Democracy (PDF)

the state intentionally intervening in the structures and processes of society is becoming more complex. New actors are taking the stage. In cooperation with nation-states, institutions such as the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations influence the political design of life in the community. More and more frequently, civil-society actors are playing a part in shaping and implementing political regulation (Jakobeit et al. 2010). These new forms of governance (Mayntz 2009, 43) differ depending on the policy area and the level to which a given arrangement applies (Raube, this volume, 116). Globalization leads to the "multiplication of different normative orders" (Sassen 2008, 11) and to collisions between these orders (Fischer-Lescano and Teubner 2006, 36). Nation-states, again, change in quite different ways in this process by which people take increasingly comprehensive, intensive, and far-reaching action across national borders (Beck and Grande 2010, 429; Held et al. 1999, 15). This manifold difference can have both negative and positive consequences for democratic governance. Therefore, the fundamental question of this concept is how actors deal with difference. This means that politics is called upon to judge difference not prematurely as problematic but to consider in each case how the positive aspects of difference can be brought to fruition. The cognitive interest of the concept is directed towards the capacity of democratic politics "to manage difference [] in ways that upgrade the collective interest" (Stone Sweet, this volume, 227). Where the negative potential of difference is apparent, countermeasures have to be taken (Putnam 2007, 137-174)2. Even in language it is evident that the negative meaning of difference is to be attributed to human action. The historian Reinhart Koselleck has been able to show that when groups apply general terms only to themselves, thus asserting an "exclusive claim to generality" (1985, 156) those excluded suffer discrimination. The counterconcept of "Hellenes and Barbarians" offers one example. Barbarians were not only strangers but also strangers with negative characteristics. History knows many counterconcepts designed to exclude mutual recognition. Such counterconcepts-being one form of difference-are asymmetrical (Koselleck 1985, 156). Thus, it is up to humanities and social sciences to gain empirical knowledge about the concrete conditions that either lead to differences being abused for exclusion, for constructing enemy stereotypes and for negative definitions of others, or that enable the positive potential of difference to be used to "fuel" the freedom and equality of citizens in democratic systems. Political scientists must investigate in which way difference becomes a point of reference for political action (Riedmüller and Vinz 2007, 154). Heuristic access to explaining the negative or positive potential of difference for governance in the nation- state and beyond national borders lies in the assumed link between difference and democracy. This connection is underestimated by both politicians and scholars. Similarities between structures and processes are considered desirable. In European studies, for example, commonalities between European Union member states are particularly sought. Differences, in contrast, are regarded as a problem and much more rarely addressed.3 It is not by chance that difference often falls by the wayside and the democratic meaning of difference remains hidden. This sense lies in the strengthening of democratic procedures by including difference (Göle 2008, 148). Democratic discourses and negotiations in which difference is taken seriously are most likely to produce reasonable results in a global world (Habermas 1992, 368). "The sovereignty of the familiar impoverishes everyone." (Geertz 1986, 119) This statement by the ethnologist Clifford Geertz can also be expressed in positive terms: the productivity of difference makes everyone richer. Finding the conditions of this productivity for legitimate and effective governance in a global world is the aim of this book. From the perspective of various disciplines, countries, and generations we hope to make a small contribution to research into the effects of difference. In my reflections I first define "difference" and propose a typology of difference. I go on to explain the theoretical assumptions and analytical categories of the difference concept. In the final section I discuss research questions that arise from this concept.

..........................................................................................159 Comment: The New Cosmopolitanism. The (Right) Way to Cope with Difference in a Globalizing Society Edgar Grande........................................................................................183 Comment: The Troubles with Standardization of Cultural Differences Rainer Tetzlaff .......................................................................................197 Comment: Different Potentials of Difference in the Balkans- A Paradigmatic Analysis Fran Kauzlaric.......................................................................................211 5. Difference and Law Managing Difference: Constitutional Pluralism and Transnational Rights Protection Alec Stone Sweet.....................................................................................227 Comment: Contesting the Management of Difference- Transnational Human Rights, Religion and the European Court of Human Rights' Lautsi Decision Mattias Kumm.......................................................................................245 Comment: Global Constitutionalism and the Concept of Difference Antje Wiener .........................................................................................261 Comment: Law, Difference and Transnational Norm Building Under a Shared Watercourse Treaty-The International Court of Justice and Environmental Impact Statements Jennifer McKay.......................................................................................277 6. Difference and Public Sphere Difference as Basic Component of Mediated Communication in (European) Public Spheres Irene Neverla .........................................................................................291 Comment: Public Spheres in Europe Hartmut Kaelble.....................................................................................307 Comment: Difference as Structural Characteristic and Catalyst of European Public Spheres Annika Sattler.......................................................................................315 Comment: Belonging and Engagement-Benefits of Difference on European Union Issues in Europe's Public Spheres Pieter de Wilde .......................................................................................327 7. Difference and Art Difference and Democracy: Art Martin Warnke .....................................................................................341 Comment: Difference Between Democracy and Art Beyond Visual Arts Udo Bermbach .......................................................................................355 Comment: Art is Difference Even if this is no Longer Readily Perceptible Petra Kipphoff von Huene .........................................................................361 Comment: Difference and Indifference Between Art Avant-Gardes and Democratic Politics Klaus von Beyme.....................................................................................369 8. Conclusion Exploring Potentials of Difference in Europe and Beyond Kolja Raube and Annika Sattler................................................................379 Contributing Authors .......................................................................389 Index..................................................................................................395